Atheist vs. Agnostic

Originally posted by Starrman
Oh please, I haven't belittled anyone, if you don't want to take part, don't. If you're just going to keep saying people are arrogant for discussing a subject you've yet to throw anything worthwhile at, just leave. I'm really happy you can operate in life with only the dictionary definitions of things, I prefer not to be so foolish as to presume that the ...[text shortened]... that put dictionaries together are authorities on the subject of every definition therein.

You haven't begun to understand enough to make a determination as to what's 'worthwhile'. The authors of the dictionaries are certainly much closer to being an authority than you are. How you can think otherwise with what you've produced here only shows your arrogance. What you've produced thus far show a lack of clarity of vision. You're just trying to chuck things at the wall hoping that they'll stick. Your made-up definitions are the only way you can have a prayer that they will. One only need see through that for everything to come down like a house of cards. Pehaps after you've produced something of quality, will you be entitled to your dismissive tone.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
You haven't begun to understand enough to make a determination as to what's 'worthwhile'. The authors of the dictionaries are certainly much closer to being an authority than you are. How you can think otherwise with what you've produced here only shows your arrogance. What you've produced thus far show a lack of clarity of vision. You're just trying to c ...[text shortened]... will. One only need see through that for everything to come down like a house of cards.

If you're waiting for "authority" then you're in the wrong place. If you feel the dictionary is enough, why start the thread in the first place?

I think Starrman has argued fairly against your points. You might not agree with him and are obviously entitled to do so (I don't fully agree with him myself) but he didn't dismiss your points with a sleight of hand but attempted to address them under his own personal view. I don't see what's wrong with that and what more you can ask of him.

I think you should try to look at this type of debates as a way to confront your own views with its strengths and weaknesses, not as a way to convince others of your ideas. I have learned a lot from the time I've spent here, even if it's extremely rare that any consensus is reached. I just feel that it helps to put up your own thoughts for examination and see what people make of them.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
You haven't begun to understand enough to make a determination as to what's 'worthwhile'. The authors of the dictionaries are certainly much closer to being an authority than you are. How you can think otherwise with what you've produced here only shows your arrogance. What you've produced thus far show a lack of clarity of vision. You're just trying to c ...[text shortened]... ter you've produced something of quality, will you be entitled to your dismissive tone.

I'm not after a playground fight about who's better than who, I'm done with you.

Originally posted by Palynka
If you're waiting for "authority" then you're in the wrong place. If you feel the dictionary is enough, why start the thread in the first place?

I think Starrman has argued fairly against your points. You might not agree with him and are obviously entitled to do so (I don't fully agree with him myself) but he didn't dismiss your points with a sleight of h ...[text shortened]... it helps to put up your own thoughts for examination and see what people make of them.

I'm fully aware that there aren't any 'authorities' here. I guess I don't understand why some of you seem to think you are. If you were leading edge authorities, some of this might make sense. The dictionary definitions are more than adequate for your level of authority. Maybe it gives you some sense of grandeur to dispense with them. I don't know. For you guys to have the attitude that you're somehow 'above' the dictionary definitions and that anybody who doesn't share that attitude is somehow 'foolish' or backward, shows arrogance. That attitude comes through loud and clear in your posts. Starrman's additional attitude about the 'depth' of your discussion had an equally dismissive tone. If he thinks that's 'depth', he has a lot to learn.

In answer to your question, I started this thread to get an idea of how many were truly atheists vs. agnostics (currently accepted definition)and what may constitute 'proof' for them to be able to deny that existence. Unfortunately, that's not where this thread has gone.

Personally, I'm not here to 'debate'. I think that's a different forum. I'm here to seek truth and understanding. Perhaps that's the difference.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Personally, I'm not here to 'debate'. I think that's a different forum. I'm here to seek truth and understanding. Perhaps that's the difference.

That certainly is a difference, because shortcuts don't work for me.

If you admit there are no "authorities" here, then how will understanding and truth surface without debate? Personally, I don't see why you're so upset.

Originally posted by amannion
I agree with you.
I think the strong/weak atheism debate is just another way of saying atheism/agnosticism.

I'm an atheist. Some would call me a strong atheist. I just consider myself atheist.
I have unproven faith in the non-existence of god.

This began for me as a refusal to accept the 'proof' of the existence of god. All such proofs are circular ...[text shortened]... and I now recognise my belief as faith without proof - much as a religious person would have.

That is very interesting!!!!

That is actually what I believe all atheist do...

Originally posted by Palynka
That certainly is a difference, because shortcuts don't work for me.

If you admit there are no "authorities" here, then how will understanding and truth surface without debate? Personally, I don't see why you're so upset.

What do you mean by 'shortcut'?

Truth and understanding can surface without having a 'contest'.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
What do you mean by 'shortcut'?

Truth and understanding can surface without having a 'contest'.

What 'contest'? Starmann addressed your points according to his opinions and you went all defensive. I really don't know what you expected him to do.

Originally posted by Palynka
What 'contest'? Starmann addressed your points according to his opinions and you went all defensive. I really don't know what you expected him to do.

Yeah, right. I get it, "That's your story and you're sticking to it".

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
I'm fully aware that there aren't any 'authorities' here. I guess I don't understand why some of you seem to think you are. If you were leading edge authorities, some of this might make sense. The dictionary definitions are more than adequate for your level of authority. Maybe it gives you some sense of grandeur to dispense with them. I don't know. For yo ...[text shortened]... here to seek truth and understanding. Perhaps that's the difference.

Do you believe dictionaries to be infallible?

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Do you believe dictionaries to be infallible?

No. Do you?

Originally posted by Palynka
I'm self-learned. Apparently, that's more than enough for your childish rants.

Absence of evidence. If they existed once then there is evidence that they may exist now. You're confusing proof with evidence. There is no absence of evidence.

There is indeed evidence for the existence of dinosaurs at one point but there's also continuous and ongoing evide ...[text shortened]... correct them:
1) Proof is different from evidence
2) Evidence and beliefs are not static

Right, now we're getting somewhere. Absence of evidence IS NOT evidence of absence, although it is evidence that something MAY be absent (although this only may, rather than must, be the case).

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
No. Do you?

No. Why then, do you act as if your dictionary definition is the end, rather than the beginning of the debate?

Originally posted by scottishinnz
No. Why then, do you act as if your dictionary definition is the end, rather than the beginning of the debate?

Read through the prior posts. It's in there. By the way, that's a leading question, but I'll assume it was asked in good faith.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
The dictionary definitions are more than adequate for your level of authority.

What you apparently don't get is that words are just words, they do not instantiate facts. Words can and often are redefined or their definition is refined or specified for use in a specific discussion. A dictionary attempts to give the definition that is as close as possible to the way the word is general used or has been generally used in the past. That doesn't make it an 'authority' nor does it force anyone to use the word that way in the future. In fact a dictionary is the slave of the users of the words - thats us.

In answer to your question, I started this thread to get an idea of how many were truly atheists vs. agnostics (currently accepted definition)and what may constitute 'proof' for them to be able to deny that existence. Unfortunately, that's not where this thread has gone.
The problem is that many of us currently use the word differently from the dictionary definition that you gave. I for example call myself an atheist but might be called agnostic by your definition. So if your aim was simply to determine what category I fall into under your definition then fine. But you must realize that many people especially those who have thought about it a bit, would not use your definition at all as it does not properly convey their stand on the subject and also is not specific enough to be useful anyway.